Thank you, Peter. It is vital to have national leadership and ownership for the success of aid programmes. A process that facilitates co-creation, alignment to local priorities and ensures win-win partnerships, where each player is accountable for results, should be in place.
I really like the list, Peter, which should be posted in every elevator of every institution of every sector that sees itself as part of the innovation economy (disruptive or otherwise). A highlight for me is the emphasis on service delivery as an under-appreciated innovation opportunity.
Also, where would you put the sin of outmoded governance—the presumption that “regulation is bad because it slows innovation”. You used a baseball analogy. Let’s use an automobile engineering analogy - a “regulator”has the capacity to both slow down and speed up a car, as there is a need for both. Development of nimble, agile anticipatory governance tools are area of policy innovation that may warrant more attention.
Thank you Eric. Indeed, i fully agree that these 7 sins apply to innovation in any context, not just international development. I also agree that regulation is a public good that can facilitate innovation. WHO’s Pre-Qualification process is a good example. See also Johanne C’s related point above with respect to risk.
Thanks for the post Peter. I would add to the seven deadly sins of Innovation…. being risk averse can also be deadly for innovation. I like GCC positioning as ‘risk aware’ rather than ‘risk averse’. Innovation requires a certain tolerance for risk that often exceeds peoples’ personal risk tolerance.
I wholeheartedly endorse the conclusion that sustainability in global health innovation must be anchored in national leadership. The recent withdrawal of U.S. funding serves as a stark reminder of the fragility of dependency on external aid, compelling nations to reclaim agency over their health futures. My experiences working with community health initiatives in East Africa solidified my belief that true progress emerges not from charity alone, but from empowering countries to innovate on their own terms.
During countless projects in Africa and Asia, I observed how short-term aid often addressed immediate needs—like distributing medicines—but left systemic gaps unaddressed. Conversely, initiatives driven by local leaders, such as Rwanda’s use of drones to deliver blood supplies, demonstrated the transformative power of homegrown innovation. These solutions, tailored to regional challenges and sustained by national investment, created lasting impact where temporary fixes fell short.
The distinction between charity and innovation-driven development is critical. Charity, while compassionate, risks perpetuating cycles of dependency. Innovation, however, cultivates self-reliance by equipping nations with tools to solve problems independently. High-income countries prioritize innovation for economic growth; why should this be a privilege denied to others? National leadership ensures that health strategies align with cultural, economic, and infrastructural realities, making them more effective and sustainable.
The reduction in U.S. funding, though disruptive, presents an opportunity. It challenges countries to invest in local talent, research, and policies that drive scalable solutions. My commitment to this vision is personal: In my career, I strive to collaborate with governments and NGOs to strengthen innovation ecosystems—advocating for education, funding mechanisms, and partnerships that elevate local expertise.
Sustainability is not a buzzword; it is the bedrock of equitable progress. By championing national leadership, we can shift from a paradigm of rescue to one of resilience, where every nation writes its own story of health and prosperity. The path forward is clear: Empower leaders to innovate, and watch entire societies thrive. And glorious we will emerge.
Thank you, Peter. It is vital to have national leadership and ownership for the success of aid programmes. A process that facilitates co-creation, alignment to local priorities and ensures win-win partnerships, where each player is accountable for results, should be in place.
I really like the list, Peter, which should be posted in every elevator of every institution of every sector that sees itself as part of the innovation economy (disruptive or otherwise). A highlight for me is the emphasis on service delivery as an under-appreciated innovation opportunity.
Also, where would you put the sin of outmoded governance—the presumption that “regulation is bad because it slows innovation”. You used a baseball analogy. Let’s use an automobile engineering analogy - a “regulator”has the capacity to both slow down and speed up a car, as there is a need for both. Development of nimble, agile anticipatory governance tools are area of policy innovation that may warrant more attention.
Thank you Eric. Indeed, i fully agree that these 7 sins apply to innovation in any context, not just international development. I also agree that regulation is a public good that can facilitate innovation. WHO’s Pre-Qualification process is a good example. See also Johanne C’s related point above with respect to risk.
Thanks for this Peter. Tons of seeds on how to begin rebuilding broad support for innovative global public goods with impact
Thanks, Hussein — agreed. And Canada could play a lead role.
Thanks for the post Peter. I would add to the seven deadly sins of Innovation…. being risk averse can also be deadly for innovation. I like GCC positioning as ‘risk aware’ rather than ‘risk averse’. Innovation requires a certain tolerance for risk that often exceeds peoples’ personal risk tolerance.
Thanks, Johanne — agreed. Risk-taking is the pre-condition for innovation.
I wholeheartedly endorse the conclusion that sustainability in global health innovation must be anchored in national leadership. The recent withdrawal of U.S. funding serves as a stark reminder of the fragility of dependency on external aid, compelling nations to reclaim agency over their health futures. My experiences working with community health initiatives in East Africa solidified my belief that true progress emerges not from charity alone, but from empowering countries to innovate on their own terms.
During countless projects in Africa and Asia, I observed how short-term aid often addressed immediate needs—like distributing medicines—but left systemic gaps unaddressed. Conversely, initiatives driven by local leaders, such as Rwanda’s use of drones to deliver blood supplies, demonstrated the transformative power of homegrown innovation. These solutions, tailored to regional challenges and sustained by national investment, created lasting impact where temporary fixes fell short.
The distinction between charity and innovation-driven development is critical. Charity, while compassionate, risks perpetuating cycles of dependency. Innovation, however, cultivates self-reliance by equipping nations with tools to solve problems independently. High-income countries prioritize innovation for economic growth; why should this be a privilege denied to others? National leadership ensures that health strategies align with cultural, economic, and infrastructural realities, making them more effective and sustainable.
The reduction in U.S. funding, though disruptive, presents an opportunity. It challenges countries to invest in local talent, research, and policies that drive scalable solutions. My commitment to this vision is personal: In my career, I strive to collaborate with governments and NGOs to strengthen innovation ecosystems—advocating for education, funding mechanisms, and partnerships that elevate local expertise.
Sustainability is not a buzzword; it is the bedrock of equitable progress. By championing national leadership, we can shift from a paradigm of rescue to one of resilience, where every nation writes its own story of health and prosperity. The path forward is clear: Empower leaders to innovate, and watch entire societies thrive. And glorious we will emerge.
Thanks, Liviu — agreed.